DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This Office action is in response to communications dated 2/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites “…a processing device, operatively coupled with the plurality of memory devices, to perform operations comprising: selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells…” (independent claim 1, lines 3-7). The Examiner is uncertain if the two recitations of “a processing device” refer to same processing devices or different processing devices. For the sake of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “…a processing device, operatively coupled with the plurality of memory devices, to perform operations comprising: selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells…” to read “…a processing device, operatively coupled with the plurality of memory devices, to perform operations comprising: selecting, by the processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells…” Dependent claims 2-7, which ultimately depend from independent claim 1, are rejected for carrying the same deficiency.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Independent claim 15 recites “…a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells…” (independent claim 15, lines 2-5). The Examiner is uncertain if the two recitations of “a processing device” refer to same processing devices or different processing devices. For the sake of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “…a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells…” to read “…a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: selecting, by the processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells…” Dependent claims 16-20, which ultimately depend from independent claim 15, are rejected for carrying the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,331,555 (“Muthiah”) in view of USPGPUB 2014/0032817 (“Bux”).
As per claim 1, Muthiah substantially teaches a system (Muthiah, FIG. 1A) comprising:
a plurality of memory devices; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the plurality of memory devices, to perform operations comprising: (Muthiah, Abstract; FIG. 1A, reference numerals 120, 122, 123, 126, and 127; and column 5, line 46, to column 6, line 40, where non-volatile memory device 120 comprises non-volatile memory elements 123 (i.e., a plurality of memory devices) that are controlled by non-volatile memory media controller 126. The Examiner notes the non-volatile memory mediate controller 126 is coupled to non-volatile memory elements 123 via bus 127 to control operations of non-volatile memory elements 123. Muthiah therefore substantially teaches a plurality of memory devices; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the plurality of memory devices, to perform operations comprising);
selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells; identifying one or more valid TUs in the source block, wherein each valid TU of the one or more valid TUs corresponds to a respective set of memory cells comprising valid data; grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more groups; and performing the media management operation by: executing one or more read operations to retrieve the valid data from the one or more groups of TUs, and writing the valid data into one or more destination blocks: (Muthiah, Abstract; FIG. 13; and column 7, line 1, to column 8, line 3; and column 30, lines 16-52, where a Garbage Collection (GC) operation, which is a media management operation, for the memory of Muthiah is described. Valid data units (i.e., TUs) within one or more selected source blocks of memory are identified for GC operations based on receipt of a write request. Based on a calculated ratio of valid data units to total data units in the selected source blocks, identified valid data units are candidate valid units of flash memory to be read (i.e., retrieved) from the source blocks. Following calculation of the ratio, the candidate valid data units in the selected source block are written to a destination block of memory. The Examiner notes that the memory of Muthiah may be embodied as flash memory, which by definition comprises blocks of flash memory, which are the smallest erasable units of the flash memory, that themselves comprise pages of flash memory, which are the smallest writable units of the flash memory. The Examiner further notes that pages of the flash memory are groups of cells of flash memory. Pages of blocks of the flash memory of Muthiah that contain valid data thus comprise memory cells that store valid data. Muthiah therefore substantially teaches selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells; identifying one or more valid TUs in the source block, wherein each valid TU of the one or more valid TUs corresponds to a respective set of memory cells comprising valid data; grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more groups; and performing the media management operation by: executing one or more read operations to retrieve the valid data from the one or more groups of TUs, and writing the valid data into one or more destination blocks).
Muthiah does not appear to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Bux teach valid page threshold based garbage collection for solid state drive.
As per claim 1, Bux particularly teaches:
grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more candidate groups: (Bux, Abstract; FIG. 2, reference numerals 205, 206, and 207; and paragraphs 0017-0021, where the system of Bux determines a victim block to possibly undergo garbage collection operations. A number of valid pages (i.e., a group of candidate valid pages for garbage collection) for the victim block is compared to a threshold criterion value, and garbage collection is performed on the victim block to move the group of candidate valid pages from the victim block to a destination block. Bux therefore particularly teaches grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more candidate groups); and
the one or more candidate groups: (Bux, Abstract; FIG. 2, reference numerals 205, 206, and 207; and paragraphs 0017-0021, where the system of Bux determines a victim block to possibly undergo garbage collection operations. A number of valid pages (i.e., a group of candidate valid pages for garbage collection) for the victim block is compared to a threshold criterion value, and garbage collection is performed on the victim block to move the group of candidate valid pages from the victim block to a destination block. Bux therefore particularly teaches the one or more candidate groups).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bux and Muthiah before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the system of Muthiah to include the principles of Bux of performing garbage collection based on a valid page threshold.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system performance and space utilization efficiency by implementing garbage collection techniques that disable garbage collection when a number of free blocks is greater than a first threshold while increasing garbage collection frequency when the number of free blocks falls below a second threshold (Bux, paragraph 0015).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein grouping the one or more valid TUs identified on the source block into one or more candidate groups further comprises:
enqueuing the one or more candidate groups into a read iteration queue, from which the one or more read operations on the one or more candidate groups of TUs are executed: (Muthiah, Abstract; FIG. 13; and column 7, line 1, to column 8, line 3; and column 30, lines 16-52, where a Garbage Collection (GC) operation, which is a media management operation, for the memory of Muthiah is described. Valid data units (i.e., TUs) within one or more selected source blocks of memory are identified for GC operations based on receipt of a write request. Based on a calculated ratio of valid data units to total data units in the selected source blocks, identified valid data units are candidate valid units of flash memory to be read (i.e., retrieved) from the source blocks. Following calculation of the ratio, the candidate valid data units in the selected source block are written to a destination block of memory. The Examiner notes that read commands to be performed to retrieve data to be moved from the source block to the destination block are necessarily enqueued for execution. Since a read command by definition specifies data to be read, the identified candidate valid data units are logically enqueued to be read from the source block in order to be written to the destination block. Muthiah therefore substantially teaches enqueuing the one or more candidate groups into a read iteration queue, from which the one or more read operations on the one or more candidate groups of TUs are executed).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Bux further particularly teaches:
wherein selecting the source block for performing the media management operation is performed responsive to the source block meeting a threshold criterion, and wherein the threshold criterion comprises a threshold number of valid data items in the source block: (Bux, Abstract; FIG. 2, reference numerals 205, 206, and 207; and paragraphs 0017-0021, where the system of Bux determines a victim block to possibly undergo garbage collection operations. A number of valid pages (i.e., a group of candidate valid pages for garbage collection) for the victim block is compared to a threshold criterion value, and garbage collection is performed on the victim block to move the group of candidate valid pages from the victim block to a destination block. The Examiner notes that garbage collection (i.e., the media management operation) is thus performed on the basis of meeting a criterion that is based on a threshold amount of valid data. Bux therefore particularly teaches wherein selecting the source block for performing the media management operation is performed responsive to the source block meeting a threshold criterion, and wherein the threshold criterion comprises a threshold number of valid data items in the source block).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Muthiah further substantially teaches:
wherein the memory device comprises a NAND flash memory device: (Muthiah, Abstract; and column 10, lines 3-21, where the non-volatile memory of Muthiah may be embodied as 3D NAND flash memory. Muthiah therefore substantially teaches wherein the memory device comprises a NAND flash memory device).
As per claim 8, Muthiah substantially teaches a method (Muthiah, FIG. 13) comprising:
selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells; identifying one or more valid TUs in the source block, wherein each valid TU of the one or more valid TUs corresponds to a respective set of memory cells comprising valid data; grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more groups; and performing the media management operation by: executing one or more read operations to retrieve the valid data from the one or more groups of TUs, and writing the valid data into one or more destination blocks: (Muthiah, Abstract; FIG. 13; and column 7, line 1, to column 8, line 3; and column 30, lines 16-52, where a Garbage Collection (GC) operation, which is a media management operation, for the memory of Muthiah is described. Valid data units (i.e., TUs) within one or more selected source blocks of memory are identified for GC operations based on receipt of a write request. Based on a calculated ratio of valid data units to total data units in the selected source blocks, identified valid data units are candidate valid units of flash memory to be read (i.e., retrieved) from the source blocks. Following calculation of the ratio, the candidate valid data units in the selected source block are written to a destination block of memory. The Examiner notes that the memory of Muthiah may be embodied as flash memory, which by definition comprises blocks of flash memory, which are the smallest erasable units of the flash memory, that themselves comprise pages of flash memory, which are the smallest writable units of the flash memory. The Examiner further notes that pages of the flash memory are groups of cells of flash memory. Pages of blocks of the flash memory of Muthiah that contain valid data thus comprise memory cells that store valid data. Muthiah therefore substantially teaches selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells; identifying one or more valid TUs in the source block, wherein each valid TU of the one or more valid TUs corresponds to a respective set of memory cells comprising valid data; grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more groups; and performing the media management operation by: executing one or more read operations to retrieve the valid data from the one or more groups of TUs, and writing the valid data into one or more destination blocks).
Muthiah does not appear to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Bux teach valid page threshold based garbage collection for solid state drive.
As per claim 8, Bux particularly teaches:
grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more candidate groups: (Bux, Abstract; FIG. 2, reference numerals 205, 206, and 207; and paragraphs 0017-0021, where the system of Bux determines a victim block to possibly undergo garbage collection operations. A number of valid pages (i.e., a group of candidate valid pages for garbage collection) for the victim block is compared to a threshold criterion value, and garbage collection is performed on the victim block to move the group of candidate valid pages from the victim block to a destination block. Bux therefore particularly teaches grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more candidate groups); and
the one or more candidate groups: (Bux, Abstract; FIG. 2, reference numerals 205, 206, and 207; and paragraphs 0017-0021, where the system of Bux determines a victim block to possibly undergo garbage collection operations. A number of valid pages (i.e., a group of candidate valid pages for garbage collection) for the victim block is compared to a threshold criterion value, and garbage collection is performed on the victim block to move the group of candidate valid pages from the victim block to a destination block. Bux therefore particularly teaches the one or more candidate groups).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bux and Muthiah before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the system of Muthiah to include the principles of Bux of performing garbage collection based on a valid page threshold.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system performance and space utilization efficiency by implementing garbage collection techniques that disable garbage collection when a number of free blocks is greater than a first threshold while increasing garbage collection frequency when the number of free blocks falls below a second threshold (Bux, paragraph 0015).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 9 is substantially similar to the language of claim 2. Claim 9 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 12 is substantially similar to the language of claim 5. Claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 14 is substantially similar to the language of claim 7. Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 15, Muthiah substantially teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations (Muthiah, FIG. 1A, FIG. 13; and column 3, lines 7-18) comprising:
selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells; identifying one or more valid TUs in the source block, wherein each valid TU of the one or more valid TUs corresponds to a respective set of memory cells comprising valid data; grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more groups; and performing the media management operation by: executing one or more read operations to retrieve the valid data from the one or more groups of TUs, and writing the valid data into one or more destination blocks: (Muthiah, Abstract; FIG. 13; and column 7, line 1, to column 8, line 3; and column 30, lines 16-52, where a Garbage Collection (GC) operation, which is a media management operation, for the memory of Muthiah is described. Valid data units (i.e., TUs) within one or more selected source blocks of memory are identified for GC operations based on receipt of a write request. Based on a calculated ratio of valid data units to total data units in the selected source blocks, identified valid data units are candidate valid units of flash memory to be read (i.e., retrieved) from the source blocks. Following calculation of the ratio, the candidate valid data units in the selected source block are written to a destination block of memory. The Examiner notes that the memory of Muthiah may be embodied as flash memory, which by definition comprises blocks of flash memory, which are the smallest erasable units of the flash memory, that themselves comprise pages of flash memory, which are the smallest writable units of the flash memory. The Examiner further notes that pages of the flash memory are groups of cells of flash memory. Pages of blocks of the flash memory of Muthiah that contain valid data thus comprise memory cells that store valid data. Muthiah therefore substantially teaches selecting, by a processing device, a source block of a memory device for performing a media management operation, wherein the source block comprises one or more translation units (TUs), and wherein a TU comprises a respective set of memory cells; identifying one or more valid TUs in the source block, wherein each valid TU of the one or more valid TUs corresponds to a respective set of memory cells comprising valid data; grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more groups; and performing the media management operation by: executing one or more read operations to retrieve the valid data from the one or more groups of TUs, and writing the valid data into one or more destination blocks).
Muthiah does not appear to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Bux teach valid page threshold based garbage collection for solid state drive.
As per claim 15, Bux particularly teaches:
grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more candidate groups: (Bux, Abstract; FIG. 2, reference numerals 205, 206, and 207; and paragraphs 0017-0021, where the system of Bux determines a victim block to possibly undergo garbage collection operations. A number of valid pages (i.e., a group of candidate valid pages for garbage collection) for the victim block is compared to a threshold criterion value, and garbage collection is performed on the victim block to move the group of candidate valid pages from the victim block to a destination block. Bux therefore particularly teaches grouping the one or more valid TUs identified in the source block into one or more candidate groups); and
the one or more candidate groups: (Bux, Abstract; FIG. 2, reference numerals 205, 206, and 207; and paragraphs 0017-0021, where the system of Bux determines a victim block to possibly undergo garbage collection operations. A number of valid pages (i.e., a group of candidate valid pages for garbage collection) for the victim block is compared to a threshold criterion value, and garbage collection is performed on the victim block to move the group of candidate valid pages from the victim block to a destination block. Bux therefore particularly teaches the one or more candidate groups).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bux and Muthiah before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the system of Muthiah to include the principles of Bux of performing garbage collection based on a valid page threshold.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system performance and space utilization efficiency by implementing garbage collection techniques that disable garbage collection when a number of free blocks is greater than a first threshold while increasing garbage collection frequency when the number of free blocks falls below a second threshold (Bux, paragraph 0015).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 16 is substantially similar to the language of claim 2. Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 19 is substantially similar to the language of claim 5. Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,331,555 (“Muthiah”) in view of USPGPUB 2014/0032817 (“Bux”) and further in view of USPGPUB 2013/0346668 (“Floman”).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Muthiah further particularly teaches wherein identifying the one or more valid TUs in the source block further comprises:
to determine if the TU of the one or more TUs in the source block is a valid TU of the one or more valid TUs in the source block: (Muthiah, Abstract; FIG. 13; and column 7, line 1, to column 8, line 3; and column 30, lines 16-52, where a Garbage Collection (GC) operation, which is a media management operation, for the memory of Muthiah is described. Valid data units (i.e., TUs) within one or more selected source blocks of memory are identified for GC operations based on receipt of a write request. Based on a calculated ratio of valid data units to total data units in the selected source blocks, identified valid data units are candidate valid units of flash memory to be read (i.e., retrieved) from the source blocks. Following calculation of the ratio, the candidate valid data units in the selected source block are written to a destination block of memory. The Examiner notes valid data units of a source block are determined prior to being written to a destination storage block. Muthiah therefore substantially teaches to determine if the TU of the one or more TUs in the source block is a valid TU of the one or more valid TUs in the source block).
Neither Muthiah nor Bux appears to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Floman teaches virtual memory module.
As per claim 6, Floman particularly teaches:
using a physical-to-logical (P2L) table: (Floman, paragraph 0007, where a P2L table is used to enable management of NAND flash memory. Floman therefore particularly teaches using a physical-to-logical (P2L) table).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Floman, Bux, and Muthiah to modify the combination of Bux with Muthiah to include the principles of Floman of using a P2L table to allow for address translations.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system flexibility by implementing techniques for memory management that share resources among memory devices and host devices (Floman, paragraph 0001).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 13 is substantially similar to the language of claim 6. Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 20 is substantially similar to the language of claim 6. Claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and all intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and is not relied upon for any rejection but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent 9,189,392: teaches using a buffer to temporarily store valid data while performing garbage collection3
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel C. Chappell whose telephone number is (571)272-5003. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1800, Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jared I. Rutz can be reached at (571)272-5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Daniel C. Chappell
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2135
/Daniel C. Chappell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135